The Secret Files of Pointyman2000

Monday, February 18, 2008

I would like to stress that rumors of my untimely demise are greatly exaggerated.

In fact I would like to clarify that while I did end up being blasted out of the pressurized door of Neo-Nazi secret spy plane in atmosphere, I was able to use both the door in question as an air board to scoot over to a pair of large birds negotiated for their assistance with the promise of fish.

Dealing with the shark infested waters I landed in was an entirely different matter however.

But nonetheless with that rather exciting weekend, I am once again safely ensconced within the office, typing away at the laptop and otherwise maintaining my civilian identity when I'm not out saving the world.

I shall endeavor to write more frequently on this blog as I feel a burning shame towards not being able to keep this one updated as much as I ought to.

Friday, June 29, 2007

You are Captain Malcolm Reynolds, aka. Mal or Captain Tightpants. You saw most of your men die in a war you lost and now you seek solitude with a small crew that you are fiercely devoted to. You have no problems being naked.Take this quiz!

Friday, June 01, 2007

The protagonists of this modern fairy tale are the changelings, or as they often call themselves, the Lost. Stolen away from their human lives as children or adults, they spent what seemed like years or even centuries in Faerie, chattel to beautiful but inhuman lords and ladies. Fed on faerie food and drink, they gradually became more fae themselves, their bodies shifting slightly to reflect their roles. Some, however, managed to escape. Holding on to their memories of home, they found their way through the winding thorns of the Hedge, the barrier between the mortal world and time-twisted Faerie.

Their return, however, was all too bittersweet. Some came back twenty years after they'd first vanished, even though it had never seemed that long to them in Faerie. Others who had reached adulthood in Arcadia found that they returned only a few hours after their abduction. And almost all found, horribly enough, that they weren't missed. The Fae had been thorough. Left in the stead of each abducted changeling was a replica, a simulacrum, a thing that looked like him or her — but wasn't. Now, with inhuman strangers living their lives and nowhere to go, the Lost must find their own way in the world that was stolen from them.

Changeling deals with the struggles and dreams of people who are no longer what they were, their mortal flesh interwoven with fae magic. An illusion called the Mask obscures their remade physical bodies, allowing them to pass for humans — a word that doesn't apply to them any more. The contrast between the reality of the mortal world and the unreality of Faerie colors their stories, in ways that often express as beauty, madness or both.

The beauty referred to almost goes without saying. Faerie is beautiful. It isn't kindly, or nurturing, or benevolent, but it is wondrously beautiful. The same is true for its children, both those that were born of its unreal matter and those mortals that were abducted and nursed on its magic. Even a hideous Ogre may have some strangely sketched artistry to its asymmetrical features, and even a Darkling of disturbing mien may have an elegantly hypnotic grace or cold, frank sexuality. But as the Lost move among the mortal world, trying to recover their old lives or draw enough Glamour to sustain themselves, they become aware of the beautiful things that mortals often take for granted. To a changeling, there is beauty in the grief hanging over the funeral of a good man, or in the awkward way a young girl twists her hands at a school dance. They see things nobody else does — not simply because they can, but because they try.

The madness inherent to a changeling's existence is also twofold. Part is external. Changelings too often cross paths with things of Faerie and the Hedge — strange, creeping things that should not be, that defy human rationality. The Others themselves can only be described as "mad," for surely they subscribe to no mortal definition of sanity. But an equally great threat comes from within. The threshold between dream and reality, between Faerie and mortality, is easily crossed… and a changeling doesn't always know which side of the threshold she stands on.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Although the space allotted here can't possibly suffice to elaboratein detail on the long list of Mr. Jay U. Anyong's Stalinism-orientedinclinations -- including the haughty, the wretched, the viperine, andespecially the unpleasant -- I'll use what little space I have to freeJay's mind from the constricting trammels of priggism and thecounterfeit moral inhibitions that have replaced true morality. Tostart, Jay's goombahs have been staggering around like punch-drunkfighters hit too many times -- stunned, confused, betrayed, and tryingdesperately to rationalize Jay's stubborn, perverted personal attacks.It is not a pretty sight. Jay is bad enough when he's alone, but he iseven worse when he's joined by obstinate scofflaws. I once told himthat he cannot be reformed. How did he respond to that? He proceeded tocurse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting thisletter, which serves only to show that Jay claims that those of us whooppose him would rather run than fight. Well, I beg to differ. Is hishead really buried too deep in the sand to know that I don't see why hewants to open the gates of Hell? My best guess, for what it may beworth, is based on two key observations. The first observation is thathis acolytes have decided, behind closed doors and in closed sessions,to create a regime of slovenly, craven prætorianism. The second, moretelling, observation is that for Jay's gloomy plans to succeed, heneeds to "dumb down" our society. An uninformed populace is easier tocontrol and manipulate than an educated populace. In a matter of days,schoolchildren will stop being required to learn the meanings of wordslike "tetraiodophenolphthalein" and "formaldehydesulphoxylic". Theywill be incapable of comprehending that Jay's cringers are merelyciphers. Jay is the one who decides whether or not to redefine successand obscure failure. Jay is the one who gives out the orders to censorby caricature and preempt discussion by stereotype. And Jay is the onetrying to conceal how his adages are complete and total offal. And Ican say that with a clear conscience because if he thinks that we canchange the truth if we don't like it the way it is, then he's sadlymistaken.

Does Jay do research before he reports things, or does he just guessand hope he's right? The reason I ask is that we need to look beyondthe most immediate and visible problems with Jay. We need to look atwhat is behind these problems and understand that purists may object tomy failure to present specific examples of Jay's pudibund hijinks.Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. Theexplanation demands an understanding of how Jay proclaims at everyopportunity that he'd never let paltry, mendacious weirdos serve as ouroverlords. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. Don't thinkwe're not at war just because you're not stepping over dead bodies inthe streets. We're at war with Jay's mentally deficient plaints. We'reat war with his lecherous words. And we're at war with hisuncompanionable, unsavory intimations. As in any war, we ought to beaware of the fact that Jay's hangers-on have learned their scripts welland the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation.

There is no place in this country where we are safe from Jay'soperatives, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack.Jay is typical of self-serving fugitives in his wild invocations to theirrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his views.Perhaps you haven't noticed that he files one grievance after another.Perhaps you haven't noticed that it would be good for the press tostart paying attention to things like this. And perhaps you haven'tnoticed that antipluralism is the principal ingredient in theideological flypaper he uses to attract daft slumlords into his peuplade.In response to all three of those possibilities, I need to inform youthat if Jay gets his way, we will soon be engulfed in a Dark Age ofmilitarism and indescribable horror. That's why I'm telling you thateveryone ought to read my award-winning essay, "The Naked Aggression ofJay U. Anyong". In it, I chronicle all of Jay's metanarratives, fromthe cold-blooded to the prissy, and conclude that Jay's planning toexploit issues such as the global economic crisis and the increase inworld terrorism in order to instigate planet-wide chaos. Planet-widechaos is his gateway to global tyranny, which will in turn enable himto exploit other cultures for self-entertainment. On balance, Jayshould be responsible for his own actions. Still, Jay had promised usliberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, he gave us frotteurism,nihilism, and conformism. I suppose we should have seen that coming,especially since Jay intends to create a new social class. Pushyschizophrenics, gruesome, brain-damaged mob bosses, and temperamentalscum will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forcedinto serving as their backers.

While others have also published information about otioseparanoiacs, that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man orwoman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. Notice thehumorless tendency of Jay's principles. Jay shouldn't parlay personaland political conspiracy theories into a multimillion-dollar financialempire. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and,too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditoriumbefore the response. Both of those actions make a big deal out ofnothing.

Jay is locked into his present course of destruction. He does nothave the interest or the will to change his fundamentally contemptibletirades. Now, lest you jump to the conclusion that the worst kinds ofmyopic liars and cheats there are are more deserving of honor than ournation's war heroes, I assure you that while we do nothing, those whowipe out delicate ecosystems are gloating and smirking. And they willkeep on gloating and smirking until we rise to the challenge ofthwarting his peevish plans. With all due respect, I would like tocomment on Jay's attempt to associate solipsism with nepotism. There isno association. It has been brought to my attention that"honorificabilitudinity" is sometimes narrowly defined by antihumanistdipsomaniacs. While this is certainly true, given the public appetitefor more accountability, Jay can't, for the life of him, understand whyanyone would prefer so much as one minute of solitude to the company ofa sophomoric gang of prurient, mingy dirtbags . What's my problem,then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: What accountsfor Jay's prodigious criminality and dissipation? That's the bigquestion. If you knew the answer to that then you'd also know why I'verepeatedly pointed out to Jay that no one need be surprised if ourculture's personification of the devil as the symbol of all evilassumes the living shape of Jay U. Anyong. That apparently didn'tregister with him, though. Oh, well; I guess some reputed -- as opposedto reputable -- members of Jay's club quite adamantly maintain thatblack is white and night is day. I find it rather astonishing that anyonecould aver such a thing, but then again, Jay blames others for hisunrestrained deeds. But let's not lose sight of the larger, moreimportant issue here: Jay's antisocial actions. I may not believe thatwe should avoid personal responsibility, but I definitely do believethat every so often, you'll see him lament, flog himself, cry mea culpafor seeking to destroy the heart and fabric of our nation, and vownever again to be so directionless. Sadly, he always reverts to his oldbehavior immediately afterwards, making me think that there are manyroads leading to the defeat of his plans to feed us ever-larger dosesof his lies and crackpot assumptions. I feel that all of these roadsmust eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to helpyoung people develop the ability to make informed and reasoneddecisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse,democratic society in an interdependent world.

There is no question that morbid oligarchism is Jay's preferredquick-fix solution to complex cultural problems. This is the flaw inJay's flimflams. He doesn't understand that he frequently avers hissupport of democracy and his love of freedom. But one need only look atwhat he is doing -- as opposed to what he is saying -- to understandhis true aims.

Jay wants us to believe that repressive marauders have dramaticallylower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and manyother illnesses than the rest of us. How stupid does he think we are?The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictorystances that he and his intimates take is that one can see theblood-lust in his eyes. Yes, he may have some superficial charm, butJay's allegations cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they'redependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince usthat Jay is a martyr for freedom and a victim of particularism.

One can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or aglorious ideology. Jay, however, is more likely to put a muzzy-headed,reckless spin on important issues. It may be soothing and pleasant forhim to think that the most ungrateful dolts you'll ever see areinherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive, but if hedoesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere.

Even though supposedly distancing himself from ignominiousautocrats, Jay has really not changed his spots at all. If he were asbright as he thinks he is, he'd know that his beliefs (as I wouldcertainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) are based on atechnique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". Jay's screedshave no basis in science or in human experience. Instead, they consistof intolerant deeds derived from a world view rooted in sexistexclusionism. My personal safety depends upon your starting to do whatcomes naturally, just as your personal safety depends upon my doing thesame. Why? That's easy. What really upsets me is that Jay wants to uselethal violence as a source of humor. There's nothing controversialabout that view. It's a fact, pure and simple. It was a fact longbefore anyone realized that we must learn to celebrate our diversity,not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because hehas, at times, called me "tasteless" or "fastidious". Such contemptuousname-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile butharmless. It has the capacity to encourage individuals to disregardother people, to become fully self-absorbed.

I feel no more personal hatred for Jay than I might feel for a herdof wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hatethose whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. Thebest way to push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around usis to perform noble deeds. This is not rhetoric. This is reality. Mr.Jay U. Anyong's concept of team play is sideline sulking. There, myranting is finished.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Monday, January 29, 2007

THE US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.

Itsays research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space orreflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "importantinsurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such astrategy to be recommended by a UN report on climate change, the firstpart of which is due out on Friday).

The US has also attempted tosteer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwideclimate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions. It hasdemanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits ofvoluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol,which the US opposes.

The final report, written by experts fromacross the world, will underpin international negotiations to devise anemissions treaty to succeed Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in2012. World governments were given a draft of the report last year andinvited to comment.

The US response says the idea of interferingwith sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, theprominent chapter at the front of each panel report. It says:"Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation ofemissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences ofapplying such a strategy is important insurance that should be takenout. This is a very important possibility that should be considered."

Scientistshave previously estimated that reflecting less than 1 per cent ofsunlight back into space could compensate for the warming generated byall greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial revolution. Possibletechniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands oftiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulfate droplets pumped into thehigh atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption.The IPCC draft said such ideas were "speculative, uncosted and withpotential unknown side-effects".

The US submission complains thedraft report is "Kyoto-centric" and it wants to include the work ofeconomists who have reported "the degree to which the Kyoto frameworkis found wanting".

It also complains that overall "the reporttends to overstate or focus on the negative effects of climate change".It also wants more emphasis on responsibilities of the developing world.

ButProfessor Stephen Schneider, a climate consultant to the US governmentfor more than 30 years and a key figure in the panel process for morethan a decade, says the world is "playing Russian roulette" with itsfuture by responding too slowly to climate change.

The panel'sdraft report shows projections for average global temperature rise from1990 to 2100 will expand slightly, with a new range of one to 6.3degrees. The 2001 report's range was 1.4 to 5.8 degrees.

ProfessorSchneider said he was concerned the increase was more likely to bethree degrees or higher, with a 10 per cent chance of a six-degree riseby the end of the century.

"Hell, we buy fire insurance based ona 1 per cent chance," he said. "If we're going to be risk averse … wecannot dismiss the possibility of potentially catastrophic outliers andthat includes Greenland and West Antarctica [ice sheets breaking up],massive species extinctions, intensified hurricanes and all thosethings. "There's at least a 10 per cent chance of that. And that to mefor a society is too high a risk … My value judgement when you'retalking about planetary life support systems is that 10 per cent, myGod, that's Russian roulette with a Luger."